AMERICAN AIRLINES: To Pay $5 Million & Cooperate in Cartel Probe----------------------------------------------------------------Erik Larson at Bloomberg News reports that AMR Corp.'s AmericanAirlines agreed to give evidence against other carriers and pay$5 million to a group of freight shippers to settle a New Yorkclass-action lawsuit over its role in a global price-fixingcartel.

Under the deal, American will provide witnesses, documents andelectronic data to help shippers in similar cases in Canada,Australia, South Korea and other countries, the group's lawyer,Michael Hausfeld, Esq., of Hausfeld & Co. LLP, said in a statementin London last week. The agreement, filed July 26 in federal courtin Brooklyn, New York, is the first by an airline to helpprosecute the cartel claims outside the U.S., he said.

"It is an important step forward for shippers in Europe and aroundthe world and demonstrates that companies can act responsibly toresolve competition disputes without resorting to excessive orprotracted litigation," Mr. Hausfeld, who is co-lead counsel inthe case, said in the statement.

The industry's freight services have been probed by the U.S. andthe European Union since 2006, leading to settlements, fines andplea deals by airlines and executives. Earlier this month, AirFrance-KLM Group agreed to pay $87 million to hundreds of freightshippers to settle a similar class-action lawsuit in the U.S.

American, based in Fort Worth, Texas, didn't admit fault orliability and was only added as a defendant in the case in orderto seek court approval of the proposed deal, spokesman Tim Wagnersaid in an e-mail last week.

"American Airlines has done nothing wrong," Mr. Wagner said."Litigation is an expensive and uncertain proposition and avoidingthe cost and inconvenience of trial made paying the settlement thebest financial decision for American."

Settlement talks with American started after the EU in 2007 gavethe carrier a so-called statement of objections related to thecartel, Mr. Hausfeld said in court papers.

Mr. Hausfeld later concluded that "while AA did face some risk ofliability, it would be difficult for plaintiffs to obtain ajudgment against it, given the evidence," according to the courtfiling.

The case is In re Air Cargo Shipping Services AntitrustLitigation, 1:06-md-01775, Eastern District of New York(Brooklyn).

The Plaintiffs say that the iPad does not function for prolongeduse either outdoors or in many other warm conditions. Further,the iPad overheats so quickly that it is "virtually unusable" incertain conditions such as in direct sunlight, since it turns offseven after just a few minutes of use.

Apple Inc. is the designer of the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad.Plaintiffs allege that they purchased the iPad tablet computerduring the relevant time period and used the iPad, but did notreceive full value, as promised by Apple. The iPad uses the sameoperating system as the iPhone, and can run its own specificapplications as well as those developed originally for the iPhone.

Audio-Rite also falsely represented that its voice writing programcan be financed through student loans which defendant will arrangefor the benefit of students, and that its voice writing program isa fully-accredited court reporting school.

Sima Alter claims that contrary to Audio-Rite representations, theschool's voice writing technique is not validly recognized in theStates of New Jersey and New York, is not preferred to thetraditional stenographic technique, particularly in the courtreporting industry, and that student loans secured by Audio-Ritefor students are at rates that are uncompetitive.

The Plaintiffs claim that BP was negligent and reckless in dumpingtoxic dispersant chemicals on and adjacent to their properties.Since the spill began, BP has dumped millions of gallons ofdispersant chemicals, either underwater, by boat or by air, tosink the crude oil to the bottom of the ocean. One of thechemicals used, called Corexit(R) 9500, is considered 4 times moretoxic than sweet crude oil. Because of its toxicity to humans andmarine environments, the United Kingdom has banned its use. ThePlaintiffs claim their breathing and gastrointestinal problems, aswell as the widespread respiratory problems being experienced bypeople on the Gulf Coast, are directly related to BP's use of thetoxic chemicals.

"BP is using these dispersants at an unprecedented rate not seenin other oil disasters," says Rhon Jones, Esq., head of BeasleyAllen's Toxic Torts division. "What you are seeing is a companythat is doing anything to keep the oil out of sight and out ofmind. They are using these chemicals close to the shore, andpredictably, people are starting to feel the effects."

While this case marks the first spill-related personal injury suitfiled by the firm, Beasley Allen has filed a number of lawsuits inDistrict Courts in Alabama, Florida and Louisiana to help protectbusinesses and individuals harmed by the oil spill. The firstsuits were filed on behalf of Plaintiffs in the commercial fishingand restaurant industries, as well as on behalf of Gulf Coast realestate management companies, a commercial charter fishing guide, acommercial fishing deckhand, and a SCUBA diving business.Recently, Beasley Allen also filed its first case in state court,on behalf of property owners whose investments have lost value asa result of the oil spill.

This latest suit alleges the Defendants are liable to thePlaintiffs and the Class for negligence and wanton misconduct, aswell as nuisance, trespass, battery and medical monitoring.

About Beasley Allen Law Firm

Headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, Beasley Allen --http://www.beasleyallen.com/-- is comprised of 44 attorneys and more than 200 support staff. Beasley Allen is a national leader incivil litigation, with verdicts and settlements of over $20billion. Our environmental attorneys negotiated the largestenvironmental settlement in U.S. history. At $700 million for PCBcontamination in Anniston, Alabama, involving Solutia, Monsantoand Pharmacia, it doubled the previous benchmark in this area oflitigation. Also among the firm's successes is an $11.8 billionverdict against ExxonMobil Corp., for breach of contract andfraud.

COLORADO: 10th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Sensabaugh Complaint----------------------------------------------------------------The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmedthe dismissal of the complaint filed by Gerald Sensabaugh, aprisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections,in part and remanded the case with instructions to treat theremainder of the complaint as an attempt to initiate enforcementproceedings under a settlement agreement related to a classaction.

The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction since the allegations in the complaintchallenge the implementation of settlement orders arising from aclass action, Montez v. Owens, No. 92-cv-0870 (D. Colo.).

Mr. Sensabaugh is a member of the class in Montez, an actionbrought in the District of Colorado against the ColoradoDepartment of Corrections under the Americans with DisabilitiesAct, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on behalfof Colorado inmates suffering from particular disabilities. Asettlement agreement in the Montez class action was approved inAugust 2003. The settlement agreement created a procedure bywhich special masters evaluate individual class members' claimsfor damages. The district court is overseeing the settlementagreement's implementation.

CONSUMER PROGRAMS: Employees File Suit Over Back Wages------------------------------------------------------Employees commenced a class action lawsuit against ConsumerPrograms Incorporated for back wages alleged to be owed tothousands of employees who work at Sears Portrait Studios and Wal-Mart Picture Me Portrait Studios. CPI states it is the largestportrait studio operator in North America, offering photographyservices in over 3,000 locations throughout the United States.

The class action lawsuit, filed July 23 in federal court inWisconsin, seeks to recover back wages for all current and formerphotographic-customer service agents, assistant managers andmanagers nationwide who worked at any time since 2007. The suitalso seeks to change CPI's pay practices. Other portrait studiosaround the country have faced lawsuits for similar illegal paypractices, including one resulting in a multi-million dollarsettlement.

The lawsuit alleges that CPI fails to pay employees for all thetime they work, including time spent preparing the studios forupcoming photography sessions and cleaning studios at the end ofthe day. In addition, the employees assert that CPI adjustsemployees' time records if they clock in more than 10 minutesbefore the studios open; does not compensate them forparticipating in mandatory conference calls; attending mandatorymeetings; and distributing CPI marketing materials to businesses,hospitals, daycare centers, nursing homes, and churches.Photographers are also required to use their own money to buyprops and toys to use in photography sessions, and are notreimbursed for these purchases. The employees assert these paypractices violate federal and state wage laws, including the FairLabor Standards Act.

The portrait studio employees are represented by the law firms ofZimmerman Reed, PLLP, and Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen, PLLP both ofMinneapolis, Minnesota.

Anne Regan, an attorney for the employees, said that"Unfortunately, many employers continue to violate federal andstate wage laws because they know that in this economy manyemployees are afraid to assert their rights. We hope to recoverthe money that is owed to all CPI portrait studio employeesnationwide by providing the means for these employees to join thiscase, which will be covered by federal and state anti-retaliationlaws."

DELAWARE STATE UNIV: Court Grants Class Status to Gender Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Wade Malcolm, writing for The News Journal, reports that facing agender discrimination lawsuit, Delaware State University needed toprove it was expanding access to women's athletics, despitecutting its equestrian team this year.

The university argued it had an ideal solution to offer moreopportunities to women without the strain of equestrian on itsbudget.

"DSU intends to create a new women's varsity sport -- competitivecheerleading," the university argued in a March federal courtfiling.

Last month, a federal judge in Connecticut had this to say about asimilar argument: "[Cheerleading] is still too underdeveloped anddisorganized to be treated as offering genuine varsity athleticparticipation opportunities for students."

For DSU, it was the second blow in as many weeks to its plan todisband its equestrian team, raising the possibility it might bestuck with a sport it doesn't want.

The plaintiffs want the court to preserve the equestrian programand force the school to comply with Title IX.

Now the university's case sits on shaky ground, legal expertssaid.

"It seems to be very similar to what's been ruled in[Connecticut]," said Lamar Daniel, a consultant for schoolshandling Title IX compliance issues.

Enacted almost 40 years ago, Title IX demands institutions provideathletic opportunity proportional to its enrollment. If theydon't, they must at least show a history of working toward thatgoal. DSU's female enrollment has hovered around 60 percent inrecent years, but only about 44 percent of its athletes are women.

Even if equestrian and cheerleading remained as varsity sports,DSU would need to add about 110 more female athletes to achievethe correct ratio, the plaintiffs argue.

"That's a huge gap," said Nancy Hogshead Makar, a professor of lawand the senior director of advocacy at the Women's SportsFoundation. "It's as big as you'll see anywhere."

With those obstacles -- combined with the recent rulings oncheerleading and class-action status -- DSU's case finds itself ina bleak position, Daniel said, and it has little hope for success.

"That's probably what I would advise them," said Mr. Daniel, whooversaw Title IX enforcement while working at the federal Officeof Civil Rights for 30 years. "If you cut women's sports, youbetter be in proportionality."

The Connecticut decision has not affected any of the university'simmediate plans to develop a competitive cheerleading team. DSUhas invested $100,000 in the program and hired a new coach. Theteam will compete as scheduled this school year, and for now theuniversity will consider it a varsity sport, spokesman CarlosHolmes said.

"Cheerleading has been a part of Delaware State for a long time,and nothing is going to change that," Mr. Holmes said. "Its statusas to whether it continues as a varsity sport will be determinedat some point."

Mr. Holmes would not comment on the pending litigation. In courtdocuments, DSU attorneys argue the competitive cheerleading teamwould add 40 athletic opportunities for women, a gain of 20 fromthose lost by disbanding equestrian.

After cutting it in January, DSU pledged to honor the scholarshipsof the affected athletes. Fifteen of the 20 women-- including lead plaintiff Caroline Foltz of Dover -- decided tosue to save the team. The university later agreed to fundequestrian for one more season this coming academic year. That itwill be its last is becoming more unlikely, experts said.

By granting class-action status, Stark affirmed many of theriders' allegations have at least some merit. The cheerleadingdecision in Connecticut "makes [DSU's] argument more difficult,"said Abbe Fletman, an attorney from Flaster Greenberg representingthe plaintiffs along with the Women's Law Project.

"We're sort of boxed in," said Sam Hoff, a distinguished professorof law studies at DSU who has studied gender equity at theuniversity. "Equestrian could be around for the foreseeablefuture."

For several reasons, that scenario would be a bitter pill for manyin the DSU community. Created in 2005, many felt the sport didn'tfit DSU's identity. The Dover school is the only one in itsconference -- and the only historically black institution in thecountry -- with a Division I equestrian team.

"I don't think you'd find five people on DSU's campus that weren'tsurprised when they announced the women's equestrian team," saidSteve Newton, president of DSU's faculty union

Many see the equestrian legal troubles as an unfortunate legacy offormer president Allen Sessoms' administration. In 2005, a facultysteering committee, chaired by Hoff, recommended field hockey as abetter way to expand sports for females, but Mr. Sessoms latersold the group on equestrian.

The sport has proven to be more expensive than expected, costingclose to $600,000 per year.

"Of greatest concern to DSU is the fact that so little of thismoney goes to student welfare," DSU lawyers said in courtdocuments. "On the contrary, most of the expenses are for thehousing and care of the horses."

Mr. Daniel, the Title IX consultant, said he would have advisedagainst a school like DSU starting equestrian. Charlie Wilson,president of DSU's faculty senate, said he and other faculty foundthe creation of the team "curious" and regarded it as a "petthing" of Sessoms' administration. Sessoms, now president of theUniversity of the District of Columbia, did not respond tointerview requests.

Mr. Wilson said he's had several of the riders in his classes andhas even enjoyed watching them compete, but from a practicalstandpoint keeping the team doesn't make budget sense.

"They're good kids, they're good students and I've enjoyed goingto watch them compete," Mr. Wilson said. "[But] I think there wasa general curiosity as to why it was picked for this university."

Judge Robyn Moberly ruled that the plaintiffs -- several lawsuitsover the transaction were consolidated last month -- "failed toshow a likelihood of success on the merits of any of the claims."She also said the plaintiffs' allegations that Emmis shareholdersweren't given information they needed to evaluate the offer wereeither inaccurate or not based on "information that a reasonableinvestor would consider in deciding how to vote."

Additionally, the judge ruled that "there is no probative evidencethat insolvency or bankruptcy was likely unless the proposedtransaction is consummated or otherwise." Emmis -- which calledthe judge's decision a "sweeping victory" -- said, "Despiteplaintiff's counsel's attempt to distort the deposition testimony,there is no evidence that Emmis faces an imminent threat ofbankruptcy whether or not the proposed transaction is completed."

In regard to the plaintiffs' claims that Emmis' directors breachedof their fiduciary duties, the judge wrote that the plaintiffs "donot direct the court to any relevant Indiana law supporting theirinterpretation of the fiduciary responsibilities of directors inan Indiana corporation." Judge Moberly also rejected conflict-of-interest claims.

The ruling concludes, "Simply put, the plaintiffs have failed toshow that any harm they will suffer without injunctive reliefoutweighs the harm that granting an injunction will cause."

EXOBOX TECHNOLOGIES: Engaged in Insider Trading, Tex. Suit Says---------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that Exobox Technologies Corp.engaged in insider trading and was "created . . . as a shamcorporation designed to provide benefits to the attorneys,officers, directors and brokers that participated in . . . thereverse merger," a class claims in Harris County Court, Texas.

FERRO CORP: Continues to Indirect Purchaser Suit in California--------------------------------------------------------------Ferro Corporation continues to defend a suit captioned CompetitionCollision Center, LLC v. Crompton Corporation, et al., Case No.CGC-040431278, pending in the Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia for the City and County of San Francisco

On May 6, 2004, the company was named in an indirect purchaserclass action in California seeking monetary damages and injunctiverelief relating to alleged violations of the antitrust laws by thecompany and others participating in the plastics additivesindustry.

The suit is currently in its early stages.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 26, 2010,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

FERRO CORP: Defends Five Indirect Purchaser Suits in Penn.----------------------------------------------------------Ferro Corporation continues to defend five indirect purchaserclass action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania.

FLORIDA: School Board to Join Suit Over Age Limit Penalties-----------------------------------------------------------Tony Marrero, St. Petersburg Times staff writer, reports thatHernando school district staffers had only just started apresentation on strategies to meet the impending stricter classsize requirements when the School Board made a decision: We'rejoining a lawsuit to fight the state's plan to levy financialpenalties against districts that don't meet the goal.

"This is an issue I'm more than comfortable fighting," boardmember John Sweeney said during Tuesday's workshop.

Mr. Sweeney's four fellow board members agreed, directing attorneyPaul Carland to add a resolution onto Tuesday evening's regularmeeting agenda. The district will pay a $1,500 retainer to aTallahassee law firm hired by the Florida School BoardsAssociation.

At least three districts -- Dade, Palm Beach and Broward -- havedone the same to join a class-action suit to challenge the state'splan to take money from districts that don't meet the stricterclass size requirements set to take effect this fall, Mr. Carlandtold the board.

The suit is not challenging the amendment itself. Rather, thecomplaint questions the legality of the penalty.

"It's probably a strategic battle that they're taking at thispoint to attack the financial penalty rather than the lack offunding," Mr. Carland said.

The requirements on core classes were placed in the stateConstitution after an amendment approved by voters in 2002. Thelimits have been phased in since then, first by using district-wide averages and then by schoolwide averages. The calculationswill be made at the classroom level at the start of the upcomingschool year and cap pre-kindergarten to third-grade classes at 18students; fourth- to eighth-grade classes at 22; and high schoolclasses at 25.

Based on last year's student data, Hernando has nearly 2,400classes out of compliance, Heather Martin, executive director ofbusiness services, told the board.

That could mean a penalty of more than $3.2 million, Ms. Martinsaid. Under the state's plan, money collected in penalties wouldgo to districts which do meet the requirements. But Mr. Sweeney,reading a memo from FSBA director Wayne Blanton, noted that fewdistricts expect to be able to do so.

"Just from an equity and fairness perspective, how can you takemoney from one county and give it to another county?"superintendent Bryan Blavatt said.

To meet the goal just by hiring more teachers, the district wouldhave to add nearly 400 teachers at a cost of some $23.4 million,Ms. Martin said.

Some districts that can't afford such increases in personnel costsare facing drastic measures such as eliminating non-core classeslike music and art, cutting classes with small enrollments, andchanging attendance zones.

Hernando can't afford those new hires, either, but will likely beable to avoid painful measures through other strategies, Ms.Martin said.

Teachers will receive an extra pay supplement to take onadditional classes. Other staffers such as media specialists,guidance counselors and assessment teachers who have the propercertifications can also teach core classes.

"Many, many teachers have stepped up and are willing to do that,"Ms. Martin said.

At the elementary grade level, classes over the cap would get along-term substitute as a co-teacher. That way, if a proposedamendment on the November ballot to ease the class sizerestrictions passes, the district is not locked into full teachercontracts, she said. Hernando's new virtual school program alsowill help, Ms. Martin said.

The district has set aside $4 million in the 2010-2011 budget tohelp meet the class caps.

GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Class Suit on Defective Parking Brake-------------------------------------------------------------Bill Rochelle at Bloomberg News reports that old General MotorsCorp. agreed to settle a pre-bankruptcy class-action lawsuit basedon an allegedly defective parking brake in some GM cars and trucksbuilt between 1999 and 2002. If approved, the class will have anapproved unsecured claim of $12 million.

The suit began in 2005 and later was certified as a class actionby a state court in Arkansas. After GM's bankruptcy, the classplaintiff filed a claim on behalf of the class for almost $1.5billion.

GM had the case switched from the Arkansas state court tobankruptcy court. The settlement ensued. The plaintiffs believethere are 4 million class members.

Old GM sold the core business to new GM and in return received 10%of the stock of the new company plus warrants for 15%. Thewarrants will be worth something if the new company is profitableenough to raise the company's value to specified levels. New GMis 60.8%-owned by the U.S. government.

Old GM began the largest manufacturing reorganization in historyby filing under Chapter 11 on June 1, 2009. The sale was completedon July 10, 2009. GM listed assets of $82.3 billion against debttotaling $172.8 billion.

GRAND FORKS: 8th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Traffic Fines Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Dave Kolpack, writing for The Associated Press, reports that anappeals court on Tuesday upheld a federal judge's decision tothrow out a traffic fines lawsuit in Grand Forks, North Dakotasimilar to a Fargo case that resulted a more than $1 millionclass-action settlement.

Bruce Mills lodged his complaint against the city of Grand Forksafter Stephanie Sauby filed -- and later won -- a lawsuit againstthe city of Fargo. Both Mills and Sauby argued that their trafficfines were higher than state law allowed.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the lateU.S. District Judge Rodney Webb was correct when he said the Saubycase was different because Fargo ignored the opinions of threestate court judges who said the fines were illegal.

Mr. Mills, of Northwood, was cited for careless driving in GrandForks in 2004 and fined $164. He said state law allowed for only a$30 fine. He filed unsuccessful appeals in state district courtand the state Supreme Court.

Ms. Sauby, a West Fargo day care worker, filed her lawsuit inJanuary 2007, after she was cited for five traffic violations.Judge Webb declared it a class action in December 2008. The cityof Fargo was ordered to pay about 14,000 people who filed validclaims for reimbursement.

Mr. Mills brought his complaint in April 2008. Judge Webbdismissed it in April 2009.

A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit backed Webb's opinion thatMr. Mills failed to raise any federal constitutional questions.The city of Grand Forks "reasonably and justifiably" relied on twostate attorney general's opinions and shouldn't have been expectedto apply the district court decisions in Fargo, Judge Webb said.

The 8th Circuit agreed.

"At the time the city cited Mills for careless driving, no bindinglegal precedent existed to show that the city's traffic finesviolated state law, or that the city's conduct was 'trulyirrational,'" wrote Judge Myron Bright, who lives in Fargo.

Mr. Garaas said he hasn't been able to talk to Mr. Mills about theruling because he's out of the country, but believes they'relikely to bring a new case in state court.

HAWAII: Educ. Dept. Faces Suit Over Age Limit for SPED Services---------------------------------------------------------------Mary Vorsino, writing for The Star Advertiser, reports that theHawaii Disability Rights Center filed a class-action lawsuit onJuly 27 seeking to extend special-education services in publicschools for students until they turn 22.

The cutoff is now 20.

"The concern is that disabled students in Hawaii are beingdeprived of an education after age 20," said John Dellera,executive director of the center. "Throughout most of the country,disabled students have the right to an education. . . until they're 21 or 22."

The state Department of Education declined comment becauseofficials had not yet reviewed the lawsuit.

Mr. Dellera said the class action is about providing equitableeducational opportunities to special-education students.

General-education students who do not complete high schoolprograms can enroll in adult education, he said, but that optionis not open to special-education students seeking vocational orindependent-living training.

He also pointed out that only Hawaii and Maine set the cutoff forspecial education at 20 years old.

Most other states set it at 21 or 22 years old.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, seeks to stop the statefrom enforcing a law passed in the last legislative session thatformally puts the age limit for students in public school at 20.

The law was passed following a federal court ruling in 2009, on asuit filed by the center, which said special-education studentswere being moved out of schools at 20 -- the state's age limit forpublic schools set in the 1960s -- but that general-educationstudents were being given special permission by principals to staylonger (as allowed under the old law).

The federal government says states should provide a free educationto disabled students until they turn 22, unless the state lowersthe maximum age for all students.

Four students joined the center in the class-action suit.

Mr. Dellera estimates that hundreds of special-education studentseach year could gain from the extra years of education.

HOECHST CELANESE: Will Pay $1 Million to Settle Class Suit----------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Siskinds LLP on July 28 disclosed the conditionalsettlement of a class action filed in the Ontario Superior Courtof Justice in February 1999 against certain defendants, includingHoechst Celanese Corporation. Celanese has agreed to pay up to $1million to resolve the claims of class members related to thealleged unsuitability of pipes made from polybutylene, and pipefittings made from acetal resin used in potable plumbing systems.The allegations have not been proven, and the court has not takenany position as to the truth or merits of the claims or defencesasserted by either side. The Defendants deny the allegations anddeny any wrongdoing or liability.

The settlement finally resolves the action pending before theOntario court. Commenting on the settlement, Siskinds partnerMichael Peerless said, "This is an excellent result for classmembers, and we look forward to moving ahead with theadministration process in order for class members to receivecompensation. We would like to commend the Defendants for puttingthis compensation program in place for Canadians."

The settlement remains conditional on approval by the OntarioCourt of Justice. A formal hearing to approve the Settlement iscurrently scheduled for September 10, 2010 at 10 AM, at which timeclass members may, but are not required to, attend in court forthe purposes of supporting or objecting to the proposedSettlement. Full details can be found on the Siskinds class actionWeb site at: http://www.classaction.ca/ The Settlement also provides for the formal provision of notice to those affected bythe Settlement under the supervision of the Courts. On courtapproval of the Settlement that notice will provide specificinstructions as to how class members can file claims.

HURONIA REGIONAL: Court to Certify Suit Filed by Disabled People----------------------------------------------------------------The Canadian Press reports that a class-action lawsuit fromdevelopmentally disabled people alleging decades of abuse at anOntario institution has been given the green light.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Maurice Cullity told the courtWednesday there will be an order certifying the action involvingformer residents of Huronia Regional Centre and their familymembers.

Mr. Justice Maurice Cullity says he will make adjustments to theorder and give his written reasons in several days.

The institution opened in 1876 under the name Orillia Asylum forIdiots, and when it closed in March 2009, Huronia was the oldestinstitution for people with a developmental disability.

Former resident Marie Slark cried a little outside court Wednesdayas she described alleged abuse, which she says consisted ofputting people in straight jackets and drugging residents.

The allegations have not been proven in court and the provincesays it will not file a statement of defense until it receives awritten decision.

LOWER MERION: Faces Second Class Suit Over Webcam Snooping----------------------------------------------------------Derrick Nunnally, staff writer at The Philadelphia Inquirer,relates another student filed on Tuesday a civil lawsuit forinvasion of privacy against the Lower Merion School District andothers.

Fatima Hasan said she received a letter from Lower Merion schooladministrators that her son, Jalil, 18, had been secretlymonitored by the webcam on his school-issued laptop. But only whenFatima Hasan saw the evidence did the scope of the spying on herson Jalil become apparent. There were more than 1,000 imagessurreptitiously captured by the computer -- 469 webcam photographsand 543 screen shots. All were evidence in the case against theLower Merion School District and its now-abandoned electronicmonitoring policy.

"I was really shocked. I didn't know what I was walking into,"Fatima Hasan said. "They were all pictures of Jalil, and all Webshots from his laptop, and that's not an easy feeling."

The suit joins one filed in February by Blake Robbins, a studentat Harriton High School, and for the first time draws in LowerMerion High School, where Jalil Hasan was a senior. For the high-achieving school district, the second civil suit raises the stakesin an already-costly legal fight.

The cases are similar in their broad outlines. The electronicmonitoring began after school-issued computers were reportedmissing. In both cases, the system was simply left on long afterthe laptops were recovered. Hundreds of photos and screen shotswere captured on a predetermined schedule.

The photos from Jalil Hasan's computer included shots of him inhis bedroom and of other family members and friends. In a widelypublished photograph, Robbins, now 16, was shown sleeping on hisbed.

According to the suit, Hasan forgot his computer in cooking classon Dec. 18, a Friday. A teacher turned it in to the technologydepartment that day. On Dec. 21, Hasan retrieved his computerfrom the technology office.

At some point that day, school officials activated the securitysystem. The system kept capturing images for nearly two monthsand was only deactivated after the first lawsuit was filed.

"When I saw these pictures, it really freaked me out," said JalilHasan, who will attend culinary school in California in the fall.

His mother said she could not understand why the tracking systemwas activated. "What was it turned on for if you had [thecomputer] in your possession?" she asked. "It never left theschool, so you could have clearly seen it."

Fatima Hasan, who owns a day-care center in the Overbrook sectionof the city, said she moved to Ardmore from Philadelphia so herson "would be in a safe environment" for high school.

"But then, when I'm looking at these pictures," she said, "and I'mlooking at these snapshots, I'm feeling like, 'Where did I send mychild?'"

The district commissioned its own investigation and admitted thatthe monitoring system was flawed. The two Lower Merion staffersauthorized to activate remote monitoring are on administrativeleave.

The district's investigation revealed that the webcams had beenactivated 76 times in less than two years, producing more than58,000 images. The district acknowledged that more than half theimages were created because technicians failed to turn offtracking software after missing laptops were recovered.

Suing the district over the surveillance has not proven popular,though the Robbins suit was filed as a potential class action andwas designed to cover every student affected. The district haschallenged the legal status, and parents of more than 500 studentssigned a petition saying they wanted no part of a legal actionthat would be paid for with their tax dollars.

According to the most recent estimates, the combined legal billsand other case-related expenses from Robbins' suit have reachedabout $1.2 million.

Mark S. Haltzman, who represents Hasan and the Robbins family,said class-action status was the most efficient course, though forthe moment, both suits are filed separately.

Asked if he expected more lawsuits, Mr. Haltzman said, "I thinkthat each person has to decide for themselves whether they want tocome forward."

The district did not respond to the allegations in the suit, butin a statement said "continued litigation is clearly not the rightway to proceed." It noted that new policies governing the use oftechnology had been drafted.

"While the results of that investigation reveal that mistakes weremade, there is no evidence that any students were individuallytargeted," the statement said.

The individual plaintiffs accuse the media companies of usingFlash cookies to "respawn" deleted HTTP cookies. In other words,even if Internet users clear their Internet browsers of data filestracking a user's web surfing, the companies allegedly can harvestconsumers' personal information anyway.

Many Web sites place "cookies" on visitors' computers so as togather information for advertising purposes. The class actionasserts that the companies fail to disclose the use of so-called"zombie cookies" in their privacy policies.

The 119-page complaint quotes George Orwell and demandsunspecified monetary damages.

PPG INDUSTRIES: Defends Consolidated Antitrust Suit in Penn.------------------------------------------------------------PPG Industries, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated suitalleging that it conspired to fix the price and the terms andconditions of sale of flat glass in the United States.

Several complaints were filed in late 2007 and early 2008 indifferent federal courts naming PPG and other flat glass producersas defendants in purported antitrust class actions. Thecomplaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix, raise,maintain and stabilize the price and the terms and conditions ofsale of flat glass in the United States in violation of federalantitrust laws.

In June 2008, these cases were consolidated into one federal courtclass action in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs seek a permanentinjunction enjoining the defendants from future violations of thefederal antitrust laws, unspecified compensatory damages,including treble damages, and the recovery of their litigationcosts.

No further information was disclosed in the company's July 26,2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

PPG Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ppg.com/-- is a coatings and specialty products company. Founded in 1883, the company servescustomers in industrial, transportation, consumer products, andconstruction markets and aftermarkets. With headquarters inPittsburgh, PPG operates in more than 60 countries around theglobe. Sales in 2009 were $12.2 billion. PPG shares are tradedon the New York Stock Exchange (symbol: PPG).

The company is party to certain actions filed by each of AlaskaLaborers Employee Retirement Fund and Paul Baicu, which wereconsolidated on Nov. 8, 2007.

On Sept. 26, 2008, the plaintiff sought leave of the Court to filea second amended class action complaint, in order to addallegations relating to the company's restatement announced in thecompany's Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on July 30, 2008. TheCourt thereafter dismissed the company's pending motion to dismissas moot.

On Oct. 20, 2008, the plaintiff filed the second amendedcomplaint, and on Oct. 31, 2008, the company filed a motion todismiss the second amended complaint, which remains pending.

The second amended class action complaint continues to allegesecurities fraud relating to statements made by the companyconcerning its operations and financial results between March 2005and March 2006 and seeks unspecified compensatory damages.

No updates on this matter were reported in the company's July 26,2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2010.

Scholastic Corporation -- http://www.scholastic.com/-- publishes and distributes children's books and is a leader in educationaltechnology and related services and children's media. Scholasticcreates quality books, print and technology-based learningmaterials and programs, magazines, multi-media and other productsthat help children learn both at school and at home. The companydistributes its products and services worldwide through a varietyof channels, including school-based book clubs and book fairs,retail stores, schools, libraries, on-air, and online.

SEA STAR: Agrees to $18.5 Million Antitrust Settlement------------------------------------------------------Joseph Bonney, writing for The Journal of Commerce Online, reportsthat Sea Star Line is the third carrier to agree to amultimillion-dollar settlement of a class-action civil antitrustlawsuit alleging price-fixing in the U.S. mainland-Puerto Ricotrade.

The Jacksonville-based carrier agreed to pay $18.5 million tosettle allegations that carriers colluded on prices between 2002and early 2008, when federal agents raided offices of Sea Star,Horizon Lines and Crowley Maritime.

Horizon Lines previously agreed to a $20 million settlement andCrowley Maritime has agreed to pay a reported $14 million. Afourth carrier, Trailer Bridge, was dismissed from the case inApril.

The settlement agreements aren't necessarily the last word in thecase. Individual shippers still have the ability to opt out of theclass action and pursue their own cases. Several large shippershave had lawyers monitoring the case in U.S. District Court in SanJuan.

Separately from the class-action civil antitrust lawsuit, theJustice Department is said to be continuing a criminalinvestigation that has already netted guilty pleas that have sentthree former Horizon officials and two ex-Sea Star officials toprison for antitrust violations or obstructing justice.

Smith & Wollensky, a unit of closely held Patina Restaurant Group,is accused of failing to pay the minimum, now $8.25 an hour inIllinois, to employees who earn tips, including waitresses andbartenders. The lawsuit will cover those employees for earningssince March 25, 2006, U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo inChicago said July 27 in an order certifying the case as a classaction.

Also included are workers who worked more than 40 hours a week andwere paid less than time-and-a-half. About 140 current and formeremployees may be represented by the suit, which seeks lost wagesand unspecified further damages, said Douglas Werman, an attorneyfor the workers.

"Class certification is more efficient than individual suits todeal with these common questions," Judge Castillo wrote.

Smith & Wollensky, based in New York, violated a law allowing thepayment of less than the minimum wage, or a so-called tip credit,if tips plus wages equal the minimum, according to the complaintfiled by employee Gerald Schmidt.

The Chicago restaurant required workers to perform non-tippedduties before opening and closing, while still paying them thelower tip-credit hourly wage, Mr. Schmidt claimed. The companyalso allowed non-tipped employees to share in the tip pool,violating Illinois minimum-wage laws, he said.

Smith & Wollensky didn't immediately return a message seekingcomment. The company, which has restaurants in nine cities, arguedthat the lawsuit was filled with "highly individualized" inquiriesand shouldn't be a class action, according to Castillo's order.

SUPER VALU: Lawyers to Get $18K in Class Action Settlement----------------------------------------------------------Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record, reportsthat Madison County Circuit Judge Andreas Matoesian is set to givethe final nod to the settlement of a class action suit filed lastyear against the owners of the Shop n'Save grocery chain -- SuperValu Inc.

Lead plaintiff Mary Voyles has led a class of people who werecharged more than 50 cents in check cashing fees.

The final approval hearing will be Aug. 6 at 9 a.m.

Ms. Voyles and the class allege that Super Valu's stores illegallycharged overly high fees for check cashing services. The classfiled suit last year alleging claims of consumer fraud, unjustenrichment, violation of the Illinois Check Cashing Act, and otherclaims.

The suit sought damages in excess of $50,000 per count and otherrelief.

In a preliminary agreement, class members will receive $20 eachand up to $75,000 in relief. In the event that part of the$75,000 is left over, half will go to local food banks and theremaining half will be returned to the defendants. Ms. Voyleswill receive $500 as lead plaintiff. Thomas and Peter Maag, BrianWendler, and Jeffrey Millar are designated class counsel. Theywill receive $18,000 in legal fees. Super Valu must also, underthe settlement, amend its business practices, although itcontinues to deny the charges.

The class is made up of those who used the service betweenJan. 1, 2007 until June 10, 2009 at Super Valu's Illinois storesincluding Jewel-Osco stores and Shop n'Saves.

The settlement only resolves the Illinois-based litigation againstthe defendant.

Lead plaintiff Christopher Booher of Wood River filed suit in 2001alleging the insurance company committed sales fraud when it soldcredit insurance to car buyers.

The class was estimated at one point by plaintiff's counsel DanielCohen of LakinChapman to include at least 60,000 car buyersnationwide.

Then-Madison County Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis certified anationwide class in the case in 2003. Judge Kardis retired in2005. The case then went to then-Madison County Circuit Judge DonWeber.

Although United Life Insurance moved to decertify the class, JudgeWeber allowed the suit to continue but dropped the 44 other statesfrom it, leaving only an Illinois class.

The case eventually found its way to Judge Hylla, who has refereeddiscovery and other disputes in the case. The case went throughmediation in December 2009, according to case management orders inthe case file. Two months later, parties in the suit indicated toJudge Hylla that mediation was successful, according to a Feb. 24order.

On June 21, 2010, Valeant and Biovail jointly announced that theBoard of directors of both companies had agreed to merge, pursuantto which Valeant will be sold to Biovail for 1.7809 shares ofBiovail common stock and a one-time special cash dividend of$16.77 per share, and a $1.00 per share dividend after theconsummation of the proposed acquisition. The combined companywill be named Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.

Mr. Haro alleges that the proposed transaction was obtained via anunfair process and for inadequate consideration (based on theCompany's solid performance and anticipated future growth). Theproposed transaction values Valeant's shares at $42.77 per share,below Valeant's closing price of $45.87 on June 18, 2010, the lasttrading day before the announcement of the proposed acquisition.Additionally, the individual Defendants agreed to the proposedacquisition without negotiating a collar to protect itself againstany fluctuation in the price of Biovail stock that wouldnegatively affect Valeant's shareholders. The individualdefendants also agreed on preclusive protection devices todiscourage competing offers, including a no solicitation provisionand a termination fee of $100 million payable to Biovail ifValeant accepted a superior unsolicited proposal, which adds "anadditional $0.75 per share to the price tag for any successfulthird party bidder."

Upon completion of the proposed acquisition, Valeant, whichdevelops, manufactures and markets a broad range of pharmaceuticalproducts, will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Biovail (aCanadian special pharmaceutical company focusing on products thataddress unmet medical needs in specialty central nervous systemsorders). Biovail Americas Corporation is a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Biovail and is the parent company of Beach MergerCorp. BMC is operating as the "Merger Sub" in the proposedacquisition, and upon its completion, will merge with Valeant andcease its separate corporate existence.

"The tide is going out . . . the securities fraud litigation wavestimulated by the credit crisis now appears to be history," saidJoseph Grundfest, professor at Stanford Law School, which issuedone of the reports jointly with Cornerstone Research on Tuesday.

Plaintiffs filed a total of 71 lawsuits seeking class-actionstatus in federal courts during the first half of the year, ofwhich eight were related to the crisis. That compares with 84filings during the same period last year, which included 37crisis-related complaints.

If this pace continues, there will be about 143 lawsuits byDecember, the lowest level since 2006, the year before the crisishit.

While the flood of litigation is receding, it likely will be yearsbefore many cases get resolved. In recent years, securitieslawsuits, typically brought against companies by investorsalleging fraud that led to stock losses, have taken an average ofthree to four years to settle.

"Two-thirds of all credit-crisis-related cases are still pending,"said Jordan Milev, senior consultant at NERA Economic Consulting,which on Tuesday produced another study that found the overallvolume of lawsuits down to 2007 levels.

As long as the current pace continues, the NERA study projectsplaintiffs will file about 202 federal securities class-actioncases by the end of the year, of which about 34 are expected to berelated to the crisis compared with 57 last year and 103 in 2008,the recent peak year for such lawsuits, according to its study.

Declines in crisis litigation were partly offset, the study said,by growth in other types of lawsuits, including those stemmingfrom the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Recent judicial and legislative developments, including a SupremeCourt ruling limiting the reach of U.S. securities laws, couldhave a greater role in shaping securities litigation in thefuture, according to the report.

The average securities class-action settlement in the first halfof 2010 was $209 million, higher than in any prior year, accordingto the NERA study, but that was largely influenced by a $7.2billion Enron settlement that was finalized in February. Excludingthe Enron settlement, the average settlement was $24 million,compared with the $42 million average in 2009 and slightly lowerthan the 2003-2010 average settlement of $28.7 million.

Plaintiffs' attorneys earned a total of $902 million in fees andexpenses, including fees in connection with the Enron settlement,during the first half of the year, the study said.

* Securities Class-Action Suits Fall 15% Through June-----------------------------------------------------Carlyn Kolker at Bloomberg News reports that securities-fraudclass-action lawsuits fell 15% in the first half of the year fromthe same period a year earlier, according to study by StanfordUniversity's Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and CornerstoneResearch.

"The securities fraud litigation wave stimulated by the creditcrisis now appears to be history," Stanford Law School ProfessorJoseph Grundfest said in a statement.

Eight of 71 U.S. cases filed in the first half of 2010 related tothe credit crisis, the study showed. Such cases totaled 53 in allof 2009 and 100 in 2008. Overall, the 71 total cases so far in2010 compared with 84 in each half of last year.

Contributing to the drop this year is the lack of Ponzi schemecases, according to the study. There were no securities- fraudfilings stemming from such frauds like the one for which BernardL. Madoff is serving a 150-year prison sentence. There were 18Ponzi-related class action filings last year.

All filings collected by the Clearinghouse and Cornerstone are inU.S. federal courts.

New suits fell to the lowest semi-annual level since 2007. Thedecline in new filings this year follows a trend that started in2009, when there were 169 new lawsuits, compared to 223 the yearearlier.

Except for 2008 each year since 2005 has seen a decrease, datafrom the Class Action Clearinghouse show.

'Real Shift'

"It could be we are having a real shift," said John Gould, asenior vice president at Cornerstone. "Plaintiffs will say it'sbecause court rulings have made it harder to file cases.Defendants will say it's because there's less fraud going on."

He attributed the decrease in case filings in part to decreasedstock market volatility.

Four of the 71 new cases represented two-thirds of the disclosedlosses, according to the study, which didn't identify the cases.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. was sued in April by investors forfailing to disclose information about its true financialcondition, including that it had received a notice from theSecurities and Exchange Commission about an investigation into amortgage investment, according to the Class Action Clearinghouse.

The company fell 13 percent in a day after being sued by the SECin April, according to a case summary on the clearinghouse'swebsite. On July 15, Goldman announced it agreed to settle theSEC's lawsuit for $550 million.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.